"Other journalists all whine about ethics, but that's a load of crap."

June 17, 2006 5:43 PM

"My Unwitting Role in the Rove 'Scoop'" It looks like Jason Leopold tried to juice his "Karl Rove indicted" story by pretending to be someone else. "I don't really know why Leopold may have pretended to be me to Corallo. I can only speculate that he either was trying to get a reaction and thought Corallo would be more likely to respond to a conservative-leaning mainstream paper, or he was trying to get Corallo to acknowledge that Rove had been indicted by bluffing that the Sunday Times had confirmed the story." [more inside]
posted by kirkaracha (21 comments total)

Jason Leopold claimed he'd talked to Karl Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo four times the weekend after Leopold's "Rove's getting indicted" faux-scoop. Corallo said he hadn't talked to Leopold, but had talked to someone who "identified himself as Joel something or other from the Londay Sunday Times." Three days before the phone calls, Leopold had had dinner with Joe Lauria, who's a freelance reporter who's written for the London Sunday Times.

Meanwhile, TruthOut is "standing down on the Rove matter," and tells us to "expect a more comprehensive accounting of this matter" on Monday. They stand firmly behind Jason Leopold.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:43 PM on June 17, 2006

As odd as all this is, I can't quite bring myself to believe that Leopold wrote the "Rove indicted" story just to get attention for himself, knowing that it was untrue and that when he was proven wrong a few weeks later people would spend more time talking about him. There's gotta be a little something else there.
posted by rxrfrx at 5:53 PM on June 17, 2006

The things one misses when one blinks...
posted by mischief at 5:55 PM on June 17, 2006 [1 favorite]

Truthout is just Drudge for liberals, as someone said around here recently. It's fun to read, but don't rely on it.
posted by caddis at 6:54 PM on June 17, 2006

Truthout is just Drudge for liberals, as someone said around here recently.

Drudge has legitimate sources in very high places.

The same cannot be said for Truthout.
posted by pruner at 7:00 PM on June 17, 2006 [1 favorite]

"Drudge has legitimate sources in very high places.
The same cannot be said for Truthout."

That 'cos there are no liberals in any high places in the USA :)
posted by -harlequin- at 7:21 PM on June 17, 2006

That 'cos there are no liberals in any high places in the USA :)

that's true.... but even in the fantasy world of The West Wing (where liberals reigned), Drudge got the scoops and Truthout didn't.
posted by pruner at 7:42 PM on June 17, 2006

I think Leopold really believed that his story was true. And I think that he believed that if he went public with his story, and pretended that he had sources, even though he didn't, that he could bluff the insiders who he thought were keeping it secret into confirming what he already thought was true.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 8:10 PM on June 17, 2006

I think you are right. I wish instead of hunches he had source.
posted by caddis at 8:25 PM on June 17, 2006

I think you're right too, Steven.
posted by pruner at 8:53 PM on June 17, 2006

Speaking of stories that fizzled, what happened to Russell Tice?
posted by homunculus at 9:01 PM on June 17, 2006

As odd as all this is, I can't quite bring myself to believe that Leopold wrote the "Rove indicted" story just to get attention for himself, knowing that it was untrue and that when he was proven wrong a few weeks later people would spend more time talking about him. There's gotta be a little something else there.

I was one of the original naysayers in the metafilter thread (and it seems like a I took some heat for it). To me it seemed so absurd and basically impossible. You don't "get indicted" by someone handing you something you "Get indicted" when someone files paperwork at the court that anyone could see. So the story seemed false on the surface.

But here's the thing. If Karl Rove was indicted (and it seemed like a fair possibility. He did leak the names, after all) then people would claim that Leopold was right, even though he clearly wasn't. Which frustrated the hell out of me.

Of course, Karl Rove wasn't indicted, I feel a little vindicated. Which is odd, since I really wanted to see him indicted. But at least everyone knows I was right about that story :)
posted by delmoi at 9:23 PM on June 17, 2006

s

forgot that
posted by caddis at 9:39 PM on June 17, 2006

Speaking of stories that fizzled, what happened to Russell Tice?
posted by homunculus at 9:01 PM PST

Tice? Last I understood, Tice had been slapped with gag orders via the executive branch.
posted by rough ashlar at 9:50 PM on June 17, 2006

Meanwhile, while a bitterly divided nation bickers endlessly about Karl Rove's criminal activities, a traitor to the US Constitution who lied to the country about why we are paying for a trillion+ dollar war goes free....
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:05 PM on June 17, 2006

Tice? Last I understood, Tice had been slapped with gag orders via the executive branch.

sorta... the NSA says the oversight committee members don't have high enough security clearance to hear what Tice wants to tell them.

and on a related note, the FCC says they don't have high enough clearance to investigate the wiretapping either.
posted by pruner at 10:19 PM on June 17, 2006

Matt, I think we can institute that ban now.
posted by Heminator at 10:11 AM on June 18, 2006

Meanwhile, Pardon Talk for Scooter Libby Begins
posted by homunculus at 12:39 PM on June 18, 2006

Stay the course!
posted by homunculus at 12:44 PM on June 18, 2006

Hear that sound?
That's the sound of FOX News getting an eensy bit stronger.
It's not a pretty sound.

Thanks, TruthOut.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 2:49 PM on June 18, 2006

Here's Truthout's "more comprehensive accounting of this matter." They stand by their sources and the story, and promise another statement, this time a "thoughtful response" to the Washington Post piece, on Wednesday.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:27 PM on June 19, 2006